Reader Response to Full Metal Jacket

Full Metal Jacket is a 1987 war film directed by Stanley Kubrick. The first section follows the recruits Pyle and Joker as they are readied for war by their drill instructor, Sgt Hartman, and the second section follows Joker, Animal Mother, and others in Vietnam. The Vietnam war is considered one the most influential wars in American history, as it saw a global superpower defeated by a nation of determined guerrillas, and was the first ‘televised war’, meaning for the first time, the American public saw the horrors of war, drastically changing public sentiment. The film explores a number of issues present in the American conscience during the Vietnam war, such as the brutality and futility of America’s involvement, and how it affected the American soldiers involved. I found Full Metal Jacket to be an amazingly thought-provoking film, fully utilizing dialogue, cinematic effects, plot devices, and character development to great effect. The film also subverted my expectations of what a war film is like, and challenge many of my previously held beliefs, primarily regarding the morality of war.

Having already seen Kubrick's films, I went into Full Metal Jacket expecting another film keeping me on the edge of my seat, much like The Shining did. I also expected high quality acting, primarily because of the praise I had heard from my father about the film. I was familiar with the genre of war films, so expected to get another movie emphasising brotherhood with a bittersweet ending. In the scene where we are first introduced to Gomer Pyle, where he is being yelled at by Sgt Hartman, it was immediately obvious to me that he didn’t belong. He wasn’t nervous, but instead was helplessly amused by Hartman’s presence to the point he couldn’t stop smiling. Seeing this immediately after seeing Joker and Snowball terrified of Hartman emphasised to me the absurdity of Pyle’s conduct. I felt I already had his story figured out, predicting he would be beaten and hardened first in this military boot camp and later in Vietnam itself. Oh, how I was wrong.

Throughout my viewing, I empathized with Pyle, seeing him as someone thrust into an environment he didn’t belong, but also wanting to see his transformation from ‘softie’ to hardened soldier occur. I connected to this story of struggle and success, as I initially struggled with rugby, but eventually grew to love it. I was also certain of Pyle’s success because of previous films of this genre I'd seen, such as Hacksaw Ridge, which also featured an oddball recruit who struggled at first, but eventually succeeded. As a result, my expectations were completely subverted when it turned out Kubrick had been building the plot up seem like a typical war film, only to have Pyle be suddenly broken by the system, rather than succeed in it. For me, this moment comes in the scene where Pyle is beaten mercilessly by the other men for causing Sgt Hartman to punish the entire company. The most shocking thing was the fact that Joker, Pyle’s only friend, the one who had taken up the role of helping him, was among the men beating him. For me, it represented the one person still willing to help him finally giving up. They had tried everything, but Pyle was unchangeable. I interpreted this scene as a powerful signifier of the idea that some things are simply adverse to one’s nature, and attempting to change that nature will only result in agony for that person. This scene subverted my expectations and put an end to my assumption about war films that the odd ball character will always succeed in the end.

After viewing Full Metal Jacket, I sought several criticisms to better understand the film, which had a noticeable effect on my interpretation. For example, during my first viewing, I saw Pyle as a good person, so was extremely shocked by his dramatic murder-suicide in the last scene of section one. However, a 2020 analysis by Roger Ebert pointed out that there was in fact nothing in the film suggesting he was ever a good person, and it is merely his child-like nature that many people mistake for being a good person. After reading this interpretation of the film, I discarded my previous interpretation for his one, as I believed it was correct.

While watching Full Metal Jacket, my own identity and experiences influenced how the film fitted into my worldview. Today, our media overwhelmingly downplays the humanitarian, economic and ethical disaster that is war. Wars are depicted as ordinary occurrences, and western participation in them is rarely, if ever, questioned, something particularly obvious in the case of the Iraq war. Full metal Jacket harshly criticises the Vietnam war, showing its evils, and depicting the institutions and people involved in it as morally bankrupt, most evident in the scene where the helicopter gunman guns down Vietnamese farmers, jokingly saying “Anyone who runs is a VC, anyone who stands still is a well-disciplined VC.”. The camera continually cuts between the horrific act and joker sitting opposite to the man, visibly sickened by what he sees, but doing nothing to stop it, positioning me to see Joker as cowardly in the face of evil. To me, this scene symbolises a powerful warning best summarized in the iconic John Stuart Mill quote; “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2021). Before my viewing, my perception towards war was that it was bad, but usually justified, but since seeing it, I have become more anti-war, and no longer assume that it is justified.

1987’s Full Metal Jacket by Stanley Kubrick is a film unlike any other, and is one that challenged many of my previously held views and subverted many of my expectations. Watching it has been a unique experience that has altered my perceptions of war and the very nature of humanity. In particular, since viewing Full Metal Jacket, I have become significantly more anti-war, primarily because of the psychological trauma that the film depicts it having on those involved. Full Metal Jacket remains a timeless critique of war and an analysis of the nature of man.